Democrats Remove Troop Withdrawal Timetable from Legislation

ExpandCollapse

New Member

Washington, May 3 (RHC).- U.S. President George W. Bush and congressional leaders on Capitol Hill began negotiating a second war funding bill on Wednesday, with Democrats offering their first major concession: an agreement to drop their demand for a timeline to bring troops home from occupied Iraq. Democrats backed off after the House failed, on a vote of 222 to 203, to override the president's veto of a $124 billion measure that would have required U.S. occupation forces to begin withdrawing as early as July. But party leaders made it clear that the next bill will have to include language that influences war policy.

ExpandCollapse

Banned

They were just playing politics. They knew it had no chance from the get go.

Click to expand...

True. If they weren't then they would have stuck to what they wanted. But this isn't any different than when the Republicans had the Congress.

Like I said before in the aboved post. Dr Paul will try to begin to fix things when he is elected. That is if he is voted for by the same people that claim they want change and a conservative government.

Time will tell if the conservative base really wants to be conservative or do they just want to have power?

ExpandCollapse

Banned

Easy to throw jabs from the sidelines isn't it? They are no better or no worse then the other party. Until we reconize that and vote in someone that is true to their word and form, then we get exactly what "we the people" ask for.

ExpandCollapse

Banned

Washington, May 3 (RHC).- U.S. President George W. Bush and congressional leaders on Capitol Hill began negotiating a second war funding bill on Wednesday, with Democrats offering their first major concession: an agreement to drop their demand for a timeline to bring troops home from occupied Iraq. Democrats backed off after the House failed, on a vote of 222 to 203, to override the president's veto of a $124 billion measure that would have required U.S. occupation forces to begin withdrawing as early as July. But party leaders made it clear that the next bill will have to include language that influences war policy.

ExpandCollapse

Banned

It seems that all of the arguing about whether or not we should have gotten into Iraq, and all of the posts about George Bush's failed leadership, although true, serve no purpose at this point in time. The fact is we are in Iraq, George Bush is President, and his time is short. It seems we could spend all of that energy to use the time he has left (18 months) to do something to resolve the mess we are in with everyone working together.

The only thing I wonder about anymore, with Iran coming to the front again is, that when Mr. Bush defined the axis of evil in 2003, would our nation have been better served by going after Iran first, and using some other method on Iraq. Any thoughts?

ExpandCollapse

Active Member

It seems that all of the arguing about whether or not we should have gotten into Iraq, and all of the posts about George Bush's failed leadership, although true, serve no purpose at this point in time. The fact is we are in Iraq, George Bush is President, and his time is short. It seems we could spend all of that energy to use the time he has left (18 months) to do something to resolve the mess we are in with everyone working together.

Click to expand...

THANK YOU!
As I have written before, Iraq is a quagmire.
There is no way out of Iraq, and because of this, we are now stuck there.

The only thing I wonder about anymore, with Iran coming to the front again is, that when Mr. Bush defined the axis of evil in 2003, would our nation have been better served by going after Iran first, and using some other method on Iraq. Any thoughts?

Click to expand...

If we invade Iran, we are playing right into the hands of the extremists, who would undoubtedly proclaim to the Islamic world that the 4th crusade has begun. That could potentially cause problems for Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, and even some of the countries in Southeast Asia.

ExpandCollapse

New Member

It seems that all of the arguing about whether or not we should have gotten into Iraq, and all of the posts about George Bush's failed leadership, although true, serve no purpose at this point in time. The fact is we are in Iraq, George Bush is President, and his time is short. It seems we could spend all of that energy to use the time he has left (18 months) to do something to resolve the mess we are in with everyone working together.

The only thing I wonder about anymore, with Iran coming to the front again is, that when Mr. Bush defined the axis of evil in 2003, would our nation have been better served by going after Iran first, and using some other method on Iraq. Any thoughts?

Click to expand...

It might have been better. But I do not remember a compelling reason back then to go into Iran.

ExpandCollapse

Well-Known Member

It seems that all of the arguing about whether or not we should have gotten into Iraq, and all of the posts about George Bush's failed leadership, although true, serve no purpose at this point in time. The fact is we are in Iraq...

Quick Navigation

Support us!

The management of Baptist Board works very hard to make sure the community is running the best software, best design, and all the other bells and whistles that goes into a forum our size.Your support is much appreciated!